The Manning times. [volume] (Manning, Clarendon County, S.C.) 1884-current, 1887-03-30
vol. III,
conaEHCiAL FERTILIZERS.


COMMERCIAL FERTILIZERS.
now Ear They axe Profitable to E'srncr>---s
Good Article on ~ Important Subject
iFrom the southern Cuitiv&tor)
1t is quite common TO hear Complaints
OF the worthlessness OF 4 large proper
ton OF the commercial fertilizers sold to
farmers. That some OF these complaints
are well founded there Is little doubt:
That many more are unreasonable and
ssjust is quite probable. Many farmers
st that the fertilizers OF late years are
so good as those of ten or twelve
or more back. Let Us look INTO
the natter little.
The average farmer judges OF the
merits OF quality OF L fertilizer by the
effects Of the same on the crop to which
it was applied. Indeed, this Is the only
way he can safely determine whether a
fertilizer has returned u talr percentage
on the investment. But how often IS II
true that the crop grows otf nicely and
everything appears to promise a good
weld, and at last some casualty OF
drought, or wet or frost, cuts OF the
crop. During the early, and probably
the middle stages Of growth, the farmer
IS pleased with the fertilizer; but when
he gathers his crop and the g0ano man
wants his pay, and tie bacon and toGr
and dry goods bills, the doctors bill,
ETC., must be met-the cotton won't go
round. The Cry weather, or the worms,
or the s:storm III September, or some
one or more of the many casualties TO
which cotton is liable, has cut oil the
crop. May be the fertilizer was to
blame. But the fertilizer did not cause
the storm, nor the drought, nor the
worms; neither could it prevent these
casualties.
On the other hand, if the plant starts
off well and the seasons and ether con-
ditions continue auSpicious TO the end OF
the harvest, and the farmer gathers
large crop, ne is apt to be pleased with
the fertilizer he used, as well as every
thing that was connected with the crop.
One very important precaution Is over
looked by a large majority OF farmers
who use commercial fertilizers, VIZ: the
test of the scales. It is Unre&sonabiG to
insist that fertilizer has ''done the crop
-socood" when no test OF. ..Esl"r2SsteDt
rows have SEED set apsrr, the fertilizer
carefully weighed and distributed, and
the yield OF the crop gathered and
weighed under the very eye OF the pro
prietor. With such test plat, or sev-
eraI of them, accurately conducted, 1t IS
possible to easily and certainl detcrm-
{hn TtSIl!t
On different soils and with different sea
sons and other conditions, the results
will BE- discordant or different, even
when the Identical fertilizer has been
used. One Of the most important con-
ditious-or rather circUnlS-&accS--tlat
affects the question OF profit when the
money has been paid, or is 10 be I&!d
for the fertilizer is the price of cotton.
But if to be paid for III cotton i does moi
affect the question at alI.
Now, what is a fair profit oa the IL
vestment in 4 fertilizer? y farmer ought
to be well content to realize or 10 per
cent. per annum profit on a; The fixed
and working capital employed IL his
business after allowing u reasonable sum
for his services and tor wear allG tear,
Insurance, etc. He would gladly rent
out his land, or portion Of L, on such
terms, and devote his persona, attention
to something else. Then Why shonld
he expect any greater per ceA5. proht,
lone year with another, on hls invest
ment IN fertilizer?
One ton of standard fertilizers, hauled
and distributed in the soil, costs, say
thirty $500 dollars cash. The money IS
paid-say April Island the crop is
harvested and ready for market-saSy
October 1st-six months. Suppose the
increased yield OF cotton, after deductlng
the extra expenses OF packing and
ginning, and adding the value OF the
extra seed, is thirty-ive dollars, or nTe
dollars clear profit. Five dollars net IL
crease in the value OF the crop due to
use of a ton Of fertilizer would not be
considered unusual; it is probably much
below the average results. But i've dol
lars on thirty dollars, for SIX months, Is
I6s per cent, or 335 per cent. per
annuIn, Or suppose $50 pounds Of lint
cotton is the price agreed upon Tor the
fertilizer, payable November lst, and
that the increased yield is 423 pounds.
We low have IS pounds OF lint cotton
more than enough to pay for the fer
tilizer.
No reasonable man viii be likely to
deny the fairness OF the above figures.
The per cent. increase credited TO the
fertilizer is probably less than the aver
age results of the use Of commercial Ter
tiizers in general-good, bad and IN
different series Of years together,
say for the last ten years. 1t Is true that
they are not so great as for the preced-
ing period of ten years, or, IN other
words, that commercial fertilizers do not
weld as good results on the same fields
as they did ten or fifteen years ago. This
may be accounted Tor without assuming
that the quality OF commercial fertilizers
has been lowered. Chemical analysis
shows that they have not. Field lists
on similar lands that have not o3en run
TO death" il cotton with concentrated!
fertilizers prove that the same results
can now be secured as before, with aver
age fertilizers Of the present time. More
over, the price OF standard fertilizers has
steadily declned-the cost OF material
and manipulation being less and compe-
tition reducing the profits Of the manu-
facturers and dealers.
What, then, is the difficulty: Do
those farmers who refrain from the use
of commercial fertilizers succeed any
better? If they do, is their prosperity
IL.